Thanks DougE for reporting on your experience. I was told some time ago (can't remember who/when/where/why) that ballz start to lose their characteristics after as little as 2 weeks in water. Glad to see that's not the case.

FWIW, I buy my mint used balls from drmulligans.com and I can never tell them apart from new ones, except for the odd logo or player mark.

sjduffers wrote: I was told some time ago (can't remember who/when/where/why) that ballz start to lose their characteristics after as little as 2 weeks in water. Glad to see that's not the case.

I am no chemist, but I did work on fiberglass (plastic) boats for many years. Though the gel coat on these boats seems 100% impervious to water, over time, moisture can work its way into the hull if left in water for long lengths of time. In fact most boats that sit in marinas all season (and not on a trailer) will absorb some moisture into the hull over a season. But, over the off season some of that moisture dries out. The older the boat, the more porous the gel coat can get. New boats (like new ballz), absorb very little water. Applying an epoxy barrier coating is a common practice over the last 25 years, which will further protect the hull from moisture intrusion. Normal gel coat may seem perfectly smooth with no porosity at all. However, it is far more porous than any urethane type plastic, even with an epoxy barrier coat and paint. All Tour-level balls have a urethane coating layer.

I am very confident that any new ball with a urethane layer which has not been compromised in any way, like say, for instance hitting a cart path, will not absorb moisture for many months. On the other hand, balls without a urethane cover may absorb water at a faster rate, depending on what the chemical properties of their covers may be.

As I said in my earlier post, if you buy used balls, stick to those which are the most recent model and considered Mint or near-Mint grade. I really doubt you will see any difference in the distance or spin characteristics compared to that of a new ball of the same model, right out of the sleeve, even if it has been in the water for a few weeks or months (which, of course, you would not know for certain). And in reality, any loss of distance from a ball that may have absorbed a 10th of a gram of moisture, will be so insignificant, that you would not be able to tell unless you were an iron byron, making every swing exactly the same and hitting the sweet spot perfectly every time. And even if you could be that consistent, the difference between a ball that is 45.7 grams and one that is 45.8 grams would likely be less than a few inches difference, if all things were exactly equal otherwise.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I got a box from my sister-in-law for Xmas. Long story, wont go into WHY she thought I would want them. In any case, I was at my locker in the clubhouse putting my street shoes back on after a round. The locker door was open when my regular golf buddy came over. He saw that MG-C4 box in there along with 6 or 7 boxes of Titleists. He knows I play either AVX or Pro V1 virtually every round. So he asked me about the box of MGs. I explained a bit about them and their ridiculously low cost. I gave him one to try.

Next time I saw him, he told me he "loves that MG ball." He had been playing Bridgestone E6s, TM Project 'a' balls and some Titleist TruSofts over the winter. We then played together yesterday and he used the MG all day (until he lost it late in the round ). He gushed about how much he loves that ball at least 10Xs yesterday. I offered to give him more, but he said he already went on-line and ordered some. He noticed extra spin on his chips (due to the urethane cover), and really loved the distance and soft feel off his driver. He's sold...for now. We'll see how long that lasts. (He changes balls whenever he has a bad round.) Frankly, I think it is an excellent ball for him. Certainly better than the others he regularly plays, which are all more expensive than the MGs.

I'm here. Was just about to announce the release of the AVX. I found out last week, but forgot to mention it.

Here's how the AVX is different, at least for me: Longer off the tee. Longer off irons. Faster ball speed. Cuts through wind better than ANY ball I have ever played. It has surprised me on many occasions over the winter of how well it penetrates wind. It has different, somewhat shallower dimples than Pro V. Similar looking to some B'Stones. On the negative side, it is not quite as quick-stopping with chips and pitchips, but much quicker than an NXT or any other 2-piece ball due to the urethane cover. It's a full-on Tour level 3-piece ball. Probably similar in stopping power around the greens to a Chrome Soft, Srixon Q-Star, or B 330 RXS. So, pretty damn good.

Frankly, GBogey, you should try them before you poo poo them. My bet is you would see a definite difference and a positive result. I was immediately awed by the AVX when I first hit one. And I have loved the way Pro Vs played for me for many years. Very few people other than Team Titleist players and some others in Florida, California and Arizona have played AVX enough to make a judgement. I have played them in over 40 rounds and they are the real deal. Everything I have read, indicates the overwhelming consensus is positive and they are surely well-liked by a large majority of Pro V1 players. Some say they will stick with the Pro V and others are saying they want to play the AVX further based on the results they have seen. I fall into the latter category. It is a great ball, and from what I got from a Pro V at 47.99 a dozen, feel they offer at least as much benefit for me at that same price. Probably more when you factor in the way they bore through the wind, even with my little 95-96 mph driver swingspeed. A fresh set of wedges, which is on my agenda in the next week or so, will make them about the same as a ProV around the greens.

Eventually, when there is a supply of mint ones on the market, I'll start buying them from Golfballs.com or similar for 25-30 bucks a dozen. For now, I'll pay for new ones when I have no choice. They are worth it to me.

As I have said in the past, Titleist earned their reputation as the number one ball in golf. They get $47.99 a dozen for Pro Vs because they can. Callaway can't, Taylormade can't and Bridgestone can't. They would all like to though. None of those manufacturers, or any other for that matter, has proven to have a better ball. Arguably, R&D at Titleist far exceeds that all other companies. And their quality control is better than anyone's. If you ever get an opportunity to take a Titleist Ball Plant Tour, I highly recommend it. In fact, I highly recommend it for anyone who thinks Titleists are over-priced. Yes, maybe all golf balls are over-priced, but relatively speaking, I believe Titleist's are worth a few extra dollars a dozen. They've been designing and developing balls far longer and more in-depth than any other company out there. That experience is worth a little extra in my opinion. They built a ball and a brand that no other golf ball company can compare to. That is not to say that any of the Tour level balls are not good. But Titleist has proven that nobody is better and the cost for their balls reflects that. If you don't think they are worth it, don't play them. But when it all comes down to cost, Titleist's slightly premium price gets you a ball that is the best on the market. Snell, MG, Vice and other direct to consumer balls can yell and scream all the want. But it doesn't change the quality of a Titleist. And, btw, Titleists are made in the USA, in New Bedford, Mass. for over 80 years. Can Snell, MG, TM, Callaway, Srixon, Bridgestone or Vice say that?

Should golf balls cost 48 bucks a dozen? No. But if Callaway or Taylormade or Bridgestone Tour balls are going for $40 and up, then Titleists are worth a few bucks more to me. Maybe not to some, but to me.

What my point was is that Titleist has been making golf balls for 80 years, and also that they make them in the USA. They earned their reputation long before any other of today's golf ball manufacturers were in existence. And, being made in the USA, labor costs and manufacturing plants are more than what the others pay. MB, Vice, Snell, K-Sig, are all being made overseas with cheap labor, as are some of the big name manufacturer's balls as well. (Rumor is that the original K-Sig was an overrun of a TM Tour ball made in Asia.) That creates the ability to offer a dozen very good, Tour-level golf balls at a much lower price.

Whatever analogy you were trying to make with your dude in VB preferring MB balls is not analogous at all to what I was trying to get across. Maybe I didn't do a good enough job with the writing of my statement.

My point was I don't think the marketing makes sense. Frankly, for whatever reason, I have never felt like Pro V1s fit my game. Trust me that I'm a ball snob - I don't pick up stray balls and only play what I want to play. I figure it's worth the $4 a ball even if I only THINK it helps me play, and I do think some balls help me play better. I usually use 330 RX but will also play Chromesoft. I generally have had good experiences with both and neither is a cheap ball. Both also come in my preferred yellow. I buy expensive gloves (Titleist or Footjoy) and now expensive wedges (Titleist). But not Pro V1s.

From what I read both Callaway and Bridgestone have taken share from Titleist the last couple of years. But if Titleist is making a ball to compete with those, why is it the same price as a Pro V1? Doesn't make sense. Are they asking golfers to pay up for what seems to be the same ball? If it's the same price, how is it different from the Pro V1? Seems to me to lead to ball confusion, which is one of my complaints about Titleist. One thing you can say about Bridgestone is that their product offering is generally simpler.

I was just giving you crap because your statement wasnt clear to what your main point was. Is it that they've been made in the USA, made for 80 years, made in Bedford Massachusetts, or all of the above?

There are other balls made in the USA. I could argue that Bedford Massachusetts is no more important to ball making than garyville Indiana or some other city in the us. So really the only point of interest is they've been around for 80 years. But that really isn't a big deal either. The west Indies trading company was around for a long time but they don't bring anything new and better to the shipping game today. By that I mean age doesn't equate to current best.

I saw some AVX balls for sale at the pro-shop this morning. I think I'll buy a sleeve of them to compare to the MG C4 on the launch monitor, I can check out distances and spin rates and see if there is any objective difference in the 2.

See if they are worth 2.5x the money? I expect at that price I'll get 2.5x the distance right? 625 yard drives here we come.

I play with a buddy who I turned onto MG-C4 balls. I gave him some I had kicking around a couple months back and he loved them. He thinks they are longer than anything he has ever played. (He was not playing Tour-level balls prior to the MGs.) We hit the ball about the same distance last year. Many times we would be within a couple yards of each other. This year, when we both hit what we feel are great drives, I am usually 20 yards longer than he is with my AVX. Pisses him off. That's worth the extra money to me. Not the 20 extra yards part. The pissing him off part!

I play with a buddy who I turned onto MG-C4 balls. I gave him some I had kicking around a couple months back and he loved them. He thinks they are longer than anything he has ever played. (He was not playing Tour-level balls prior to the MGs.) We hit the ball about the same distance last year. Many times we would be within a couple yards of each other. This year, when we both hit what we feel are great drives, I am usually 20 yards longer than he is with my AVX. Pisses him off. That's worth the extra money to me. Not the 20 extra yards part. The pissing him off part!

I guess I'm just better at pissing off my friends than you are. I don't have to pay money to do it.

The shoot is next week. Don't know what it is for, or even if they will use me in it. As far as I know, I am still on their list. The shoot itself is very much dependent on weather. My appearance is dependent on whether or not they decide they want/need me, which I have not yet heard. But, I was asked to keep the dates available. I'm not necessarily expecting a call, but have not scheduled in the dates to do anything else yet.

I play with a buddy who I turned onto MG-C4 balls. I gave him some I had kicking around a couple months back and he loved them. He thinks they are longer than anything he has ever played. (He was not playing Tour-level balls prior to the MGs.) We hit the ball about the same distance last year. Many times we would be within a couple yards of each other. This year, when we both hit what we feel are great drives, I am usually 20 yards longer than he is with my AVX. Pisses him off. That's worth the extra money to me. Not the 20 extra yards part. The pissing him off part!

I guess I'm just better at pissing off my friends than you are. I don't have to pay money to do it.

That's because you hit the ball much further than your average 60-year-old golfer. We/I need all the help we/I can get.

And, FWIW, I choose to buy AVXs because I like what they do for my game. I have played MGs and I played Pro Vs for a long time. Many iterations of them. I have loved the feel of Pro Vs for over 10 years, and actually really liked the MGs a lot during the periods I bought some. Neither has given me what the AVX does. It works for me. Maybe not for everyone, but it works for me. Read the reviews all over online. GolfWRX, MGS, The Sand Trap, YouTube, etc. I am not the only one who notices extra distance. (And lower spin off long clubs.) I am in the majority. Most people who are switching to the AVX are doing so due to the performance of the ball, relative to their own game. It's not about money/cost. Sure, I would really love it if they sold for 20 bucks. Unrealistic though, at least since they are manufactured in this country in some of the most sophisticated ball plants on earth.

Fish, play what you want and/or what works for you. I don't give a shit. I already paid $47.99 for new Pro Vs before AVX came out, even after finding out I liked the MG at 27 dollars cheaper. Just didn't like it as much. Now I find a ball that gives me pretty much everything the Pro V gave me, but with a few more yards of distance and a more powerful, boring ball flight in wind. Around the greens they give me what I expect from a Pro V. So, I gained extra performance at no additional cost from a ball made in the USA by the leader in golf balls. There was no compromise necessary on my part. It's a no brainer for me. I play enough golf to feel the difference and I like the difference I feel.

I get your point. You think AVX isn't worth it. Maybe it isn't to you. It is to me. To each his own. I think it's great you got yourself a personal launch monitor, because evidently, you really wanted one. I'm sure it's fun to have. Personally, I wouldn't spend the money. Don't think I need it. Wouldn't mind having it, but for my game, I don't feel it is worth the money. I already have a decent swing and a decent game. I'd rather get 5 or 10 extra yards consistently and pay a premium for balls that help me to accomplish that easier. They don't work for everyone, but there is no denying they work for me and I don't need a launch monitor to tell me I am hitting it further. Just my eyes. And that costs me nothing.